Clevercell Very disappointing...

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Ed Ryba My thanks to IMDB for stopping their bad habit of replacing the original write-ups of films like this one with the "Svengoolie" episode number and NOTHING ELSE! For some time THAT was all you'd find when looking up a film like "Werewolf Of London" - just the Svengoolie episode number and NO other information. Let's face it, Friends - in the history of Cinema, whatever Svengoolie does just DOES NOT MATTER! What DOES matter is the actual information about the FILM!

alexanderdavies-99382 "Werewolf of London" is the first werewolf to be made in Hollywood but it doesn't quite work as a whole. There are bits and pieces that are fairly good but I see this film as a failed experiment. In my opinion, "The Wolf Man" (1941) is the definitive werewolf movie.Henry Hull is miscast in the leading role - he is far too surly, disagreeable and cantankerous to be worthy of much sympathy. Warner Oland lacks the sense of mystery that is required for his character. If this movie had been a tailor- made one for Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, then "Werewolf of London" would be MUCH better.Not a classic by any means.

Nigel P The titular character was originally meant for Boris Karloff, and the shady Yogami character was ear-marked for Bela Lugosi. Whilst these two horror legends would have undoubtedly been tremendous in their respective roles, I find it hard to imagine how the two characters we ended up with could be bettered.Famous stage actor Henry Hull plays Wilfred Glendon, a stuffy, somewhat neurotic botanist whose relationship with his wife plays a distant second fiddle to his work. The playing of the character skilfully betrays the very real love he has for her with an almost total inability to display it – especially as Glendon now has a secret he must keep from her; his lycanthropy.Yogami is played in subtle fashion by former Fu Manchu Warner Oland, who was currently very successfully playing detective Charlie Chan in a series of films. His is not a clichéd evil; it is a question of survival. Both characters are werewolves, and both need the very rare mariphasa plant to keep their primal urges at bay.The interesting thing about this film, viewed in retrospect, is that the full moon has nothing to do with the transformations. That detail was added five years later in the more widely known Lon Chaney Jr film 'The Wolf Man', and instantly became part of folklore. Indeed, this werewolf is less bestial than the latter day Larry Talbot's alter-ego, even stopping to put on a hat and scarf before prowling the streets of the capital.Often overlooked, I always enjoy watching this. The Universal version of London involves fogbound streets, eccentric alcoholic landladies and bawdy pubs. There are some great, eccentric performances, and some very impressive effects, including the first man-to-wolf transformation seen as Glendon lumbers through the streets behind pillars and streetlights. Spearheading the idea of the lycanthrope being a tragic, Jekyll-like figure rather than a man of evil has been retained for all Universal Wolf-Man films – the impressive make-up provided by monster guru Jack Pierce.

Rainey Dawn This is quite an entertaining older werewolf film. It is quite different than any other movie on lycanthropy that I have seen. We've heard stories of when the wolfsbane (Aconitum) is in bloom the werewolves come out and to keep the werewolves away but this movies gives us a slightly different twist: it is the mariphasa flower that has properties to keep the werewolves from turning (it keeps them human during the full moon). I love this angle - it makes for a good film (watching the werewolves in human and lycan forms battle over the mariphasa).There is some humor in this film too which helps to keep the movie interesting like the sci-fi horror aspect of the film. Over all this is a fun werewolf movie! I recommend it to fans of werewolves and classic horror.An interesting note: "Werewolf of London" is considered to be the first film on or about werewolves by quite a number of people. In a way, "Werewolf of London" really is the first werewolf film BUT there are two other silent films that came first: "The Werewolf" (1913) & "Wolf Blood" (1925). "The Werewolf" (1913) is a lost film burned in a fire of 1924 - so there is no way for me to know just how much of a true werewolf film the story is - is it the first real werewolf film and not "Werewolf of London"?"Wolf Blood" (1925) deals with a man that is injected with the blood of a wolf and superstition has it that he has become a wolf man. I've seen "Wolf Blood" and it is the first surviving film about werewolves but it is psychological & superstitious fears and NOT a physical reality for the character. So in a way, this is a werewolf film and in another way it is not. "Werewolf of London" does seem to be the first film on werewolves where we can see a physical transformation from man to werewolf. (Again, we will never know about "The Werewolf" from 1913). 9/10